Liz Jonas , Sondra Bacharach , Sarah Nightingale , Sara Filoche
{"title":"Under the umbrella of epistemic injustice communication and epistemic injustice in clinical encounters: a critical scoping review","authors":"Liz Jonas , Sondra Bacharach , Sarah Nightingale , Sara Filoche","doi":"10.1016/j.jemep.2024.101039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Concordant communication between a patient and healthcare practitioner is a critical proponent of effective care. Prejudiced communication from healthcare practitioners creates vulnerability for Epistemic Injustice and is a barrier to Culturally Safe Care. The language used to detect, address and mitigate instances of Epistemic Injustice during clinical interactions is currently unknown.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This review seeks to address this gap by assessing current understandings of Epistemic Injustice during patient-healthcare practitioner clinical interactions and suggest pathways to promote health equity policy.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This study utilized Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review methodology and Grant and Booth’s critical appraisal framework to review articles from four databases: WEB of Science, SCOPUS, PsycINFO and Medline. Following a literature review to inform inclusion criteria, studies were assessed for detectable themes of Epistemic Injustice in relation to patient-healthcare practitioner communication during clinical encounters.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Initially, 2729 studies were identified, and 44 studies were included. Two major themes are discussed in this review: (1) Types of Epistemic Injustice and (2) Counterparts of Epistemic Injustice.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Currently, literature does not directly discuss experiences of clinical Epistemic Injustice, rather discussion occurs across a network of similar linguistic identifiers, which hinders detection and subsequent mitigation of Epistemic Injustice in clinical settings. By modeling a definition for clinical Epistemic Injustice, educational resources from which patients, practitioners and policy developers alike can draw from are suggested. Basing future mitigation strategies on these findings supports pathways to reducing health disparity, especially for marginalized communities, and promoting equity.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37707,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","volume":"33 ","pages":"Article 101039"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352552524000744","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction
Concordant communication between a patient and healthcare practitioner is a critical proponent of effective care. Prejudiced communication from healthcare practitioners creates vulnerability for Epistemic Injustice and is a barrier to Culturally Safe Care. The language used to detect, address and mitigate instances of Epistemic Injustice during clinical interactions is currently unknown.
Objective
This review seeks to address this gap by assessing current understandings of Epistemic Injustice during patient-healthcare practitioner clinical interactions and suggest pathways to promote health equity policy.
Methods
This study utilized Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review methodology and Grant and Booth’s critical appraisal framework to review articles from four databases: WEB of Science, SCOPUS, PsycINFO and Medline. Following a literature review to inform inclusion criteria, studies were assessed for detectable themes of Epistemic Injustice in relation to patient-healthcare practitioner communication during clinical encounters.
Results
Initially, 2729 studies were identified, and 44 studies were included. Two major themes are discussed in this review: (1) Types of Epistemic Injustice and (2) Counterparts of Epistemic Injustice.
Conclusions
Currently, literature does not directly discuss experiences of clinical Epistemic Injustice, rather discussion occurs across a network of similar linguistic identifiers, which hinders detection and subsequent mitigation of Epistemic Injustice in clinical settings. By modeling a definition for clinical Epistemic Injustice, educational resources from which patients, practitioners and policy developers alike can draw from are suggested. Basing future mitigation strategies on these findings supports pathways to reducing health disparity, especially for marginalized communities, and promoting equity.
期刊介绍:
This review aims to compare approaches to medical ethics and bioethics in two forms, Anglo-Saxon (Ethics, Medicine and Public Health) and French (Ethique, Médecine et Politiques Publiques). Thus, in their native languages, the authors will present research on the legitimacy of the practice and appreciation of the consequences of acts towards patients as compared to the limits acceptable by the community, as illustrated by the democratic debate.